Category: Old Testament Background

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

Genesis on Nations and Ethnicities

On By Jovan PayesIn Apologetics, Articles, Genesis, Miracles, Old Testament, Old Testament Background, Primeval History, Theology

Genesis is the wellspring of all biblical thought and serves as the foundation for any well-rounded biblical worldview. Genesis reports the rise of nations and ethnicities is the result of God’s judgment on human rebellion. Is it myth or history?

Genesis as Theological Literature

First, Genesis is written in historical prose. It recounts in succession fashion early human stories, their consequences, and God’s responses. Genesis has a literary genre (historical prose), and it is theological because God is the central figure of the book.

Moreover, it is important to understand God also has inspired the form of his word. God selected the genre (i.e., form) as well as the words to be the vehicles of his word and message. Knowing this and following the scripture’s lead will help us to read the Bible closer to how God intended to experience its transforming and soul-searching power (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 4:12-13). 

Following basic genre guidelines will help us to identify what to expect when reading the book to, therefore, understand God’s intent; discouraging a subjective, privatized, understanding of God’s word. As Paul writes, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (English Standard Version).[1]

God has spoken variously: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1-2). This “many ways” phrase (polytropōs) indicates diversity. Our job as readers is to recognize this literary diversity and read scripture accordingly.

There are challenges to reading this ancient historical narrative. One challenge is its age because it is “older than most books we read… [and] the Bible’s antiquity provides a challenge to our understanding.”[2] We are separated by some two-and-a-half thousand years before we were born. Also, narratives often “make their points indirectly,” so we must read much larger portions of the book to improve our grasp of the book.[3] For example, how many Bible reading plans have died at the genealogies? Why? It is not part of our modern story reading expectations, which means such reports, lists, or ancient story forms are often lost on us. 

Genesis as Theological History

Second, Genesis tells us a tremendous amount about God and about the human story. But is all of it historical? Did it happen? These are serious questions asked in our secular and skeptical world. Unfortunately, even Bible scholars are counted among the skeptics.

The 2017 faith-based documentary, Is Genesis History?, argued that the historical narrative of Genesis 1–11 happened.[4] Sadly, Bible professors of Wheaton College reacted negatively to the film’s showing on their campus, a majority of whom are reportedly theistic evolutionists who believe that God used evolutionary processes to produce all the variety of organic life today.[5] This presumption calls into question the historicity of the Adam and Eve story and leads to shattering confidence in the historicity of the rest of the stories relegating them to mere theological myth.

There are clues in Genesis that it is theological history. For example, Genesis uses the phrase “these are the generations” or “this is the history” (toledoth) eleven times to mark historical events, genealogies, or literary movements (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2). Except for Genesis 2:4, ten references include a personal name to mark narrative’s events, much like in later times when events are timestamped to the year of a historical person’s reign (Jeremiah 1:1–2; Daniel 1:1; Luke 3:1–3). I believe this literary pattern asks the readers to have a historical expectation.

Unfortunately, a school of skeptical and naturalistic archaeologists (i.e., the supernatural does not exist) has been very successful in pushing their agenda that Genesis is unreliable history. To be clear, archaeology is not my field of training, but I have been reading about these issues for some time.

There are a few important counterpoints to consider: (a) the ancient world is vastly lost to us moderns due to site plundering, destructive wars and occupation, and natural erosion or burial; (b) many early discoveries were not properly cataloged, obtained, lack translation, lack proper chain of custody; (c) there are many areas that have not been excavated due to politics or lack of funding; and yet (d) what is available to us has provided two valuable interpretation tools: the contemporary setting and context to set the biblical narratives against.[6]

The field of archaeology, nevertheless, provides limited and revisable interpretations of locations, texts, and artifacts, which often illuminate the realism and narratives we read. Genesis is consistent with what we know of the ancient world.

Finally, Genesis affirms the possibility of miracles. The argument is simple: “if God exists, then miracles are possible.”[7] One of the main problems with reading the Bible is found in the first sentence of Genesis: “In the beginning God…” If the reader keeps the door open to the existence of God, then the miraculous events throughout the book that seem improbable (creation from nothing, a global flood, confusion of languages) are quite possible or probable. The naturalist, on the other hand, keeps the door tightly shut against such possibilities.[8] Yet, Genesis presumes the existence of a God.

The Rise of Nations and Ethnicities

Third, Paul summarizes dozens of passages about God’s hand in the human story: 

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place… (Acts 17:28)

Every “nation” (ethnos) of humanity is derived from “one” (heis) person. 

The nations go back to one historical human figure: Adam through Noah (Genesis 10:1). This biblical truth, tied to the historical creation of humankind (Adam and Eve) made in the image of God, is the foundation for understanding the unity, value, and indivisibility of the human race. There is no basis found for teaching prejudice toward others based on the color of one’s skin (there is no curse of Ham, Genesis 9:25). Instead, we are all descendants of the same person.

The rise of nations and ethnicities begins with the literary toledoth key in Genesis 10:1. The “criteria of division” used are genealogical, regional, and political divines of various relevant nations which interacted with Israel. A key point is, that “ancient peoples were more concerned with distinctions based on nationality, linguistics and ethnicity.”[9] By listing the personal names of the patriarchs (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth), the names of their descendants as the names of political nations, and noting their linguistic differences (10:5, 20, 31), we are to understand a big picture development of early human history. All of these nations and languages are known to this day.

“The Nations of Genesis 10,” Nelson’s Map Collection[10]

The snapshots of the family of Noah in Genesis 10 prepare us to understand the “Tower of Babel” story in Genesis 11:1–9. To this point, Genesis connects the human story from one act of uncontrolled rebellion and sinful pride to another. Babel, the ancient Mesopotamian city founded by Nimrod (10:6–10), was the epicenter of a human endeavor to build a community around a tower to the heavens (11:1–5). Today, it is well documented that in ancient Mesopotamia such pagan temples existed. These are known as ziggurats, three-to-seven-tiered mountain-shaped tower structures. 

The Ziggurat of Ur (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)

Babylon, the later name of Babel, means “gate of god” and was known for its ziggurat in the center of the court of the temple of the pagan deity Marduk.[11] As Arnold and Beyer point out, “with a single international language and advanced building technology, humanity was unified in rebellion.”[12] In a dramatic ironic twist, God made the “gate of god” the source of their confusion and dispersed humanity into the nations and ethnicities previously mentioned in Genesis 10 (11:6–9). These nations would eventually have historical interactions with the nation of Israel.

Conclusion

Genesis recounts the historical rise of nations and ethnicities. First, there are good reasons to believe that Genesis was intended to be read historically and that the events it reports did happen even if reported in stereotyped ways. Second, reading Genesis reveals our presuppositions about miracles, evolution, and archaeological certainty. If God exists, the epic events recorded in Genesis are possible. Finally, the rise of nations and ethnicities emerged as a consequence of human rebellion; thus, amid the confusion of languages, arose ancient nations and ethnicities from which we all descend.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted all Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 19–20.
  3. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 424.
  4. Is Genesis History? (Compass Cinema, 2017).
  5. Brandon Showalter, “Young Earth Creationist, Wheaton College Students Speak at 1-Y Anniv. Release of ‘Is Genesis History?’“
  6. See, Edwin M. Yamauchi, “The Greek Words in Daniel in the Light of Greek Influence in the Near East,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne (Waco, TX: Word, 1970), H. Darrell Lance, The Old Testament and the Archaeologist, Guides to Biblical Scholarship: Old Testament, ed. Gene M. Tucker (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981); Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 2017).
  7. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  8. Even some so-called supernaturalists, like John Clayton, have trouble with the miraculous components of these early Genesis stories cf. Does God Exist? 49.3 (2022).
  9. John H. Walton and Victor H. Matthews, IVP Bible Background Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 31.
  10. “The Nations of Genesis 10,” Nelson’s Map Collection, Logos electronic ed. (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1997).
  11. “Babylon,” Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, electronic ed., eds. Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1990).
  12. Bill T. Arnold and Bruan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1999), 86.

Rise of Empires: Persia and Rome in Profile

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, College Work, New Testament Background, Old Testament Background, Persia, Roman Empire

[Note: In light of the fact that both Persia and Rome are significant empires integral to the biblical narrative in both the Old Testament (Persia) and New Testament (Rome), sharing this historical background paper may be helpful to gain a broad appreciation of these empires. Obviously, this is only a rough sketch of these two global ancient empires.]

There are many areas to evaluate and examine ancient empires. In this paper, the Persian and Roman Empires will be evaluated based on their similarities and differences. This will be done by considering four lines of comparisons and contrasts.

First, I look at the rise of the Persian and Roman Empires, then, the political and economic bases that sustained each empire. Third, I consider the impact of environmental factors upon Persia and Rome and conclude with the major internal and external challenges that Persia and Rome confronted and how they were resolved.

These areas of discussion will be considered in light of class lecture notes[1] on the Persian and the Roman Empires respectively, and the related sections of Craig A. Lockard’s book, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History, 3rd edition (abbreviated SNT).[2]

The Rise to Empire

Persia. The rise of the Persian Empire is connected to its expansion through conquest. In the seventh century B.C.E., the Persian kingdom competed against the Medes until Persian dominance displaced them. The Persian kingdom begins significant expansion during the reign of Cyrus II (Cyrus the Great) in the sixth century B.C.E. (r. 550-530) and Cambyses II (r. 530-522 B.C.E.). These kings were members of the “ruling family” known as the Achaemenid and they reigned during the “peak” of the classical Persian Empire (SNT 140). Then, King Darius I (r. 521-486 B.C.E.) who usurped the throne continued Persian expansion on to the time of Xerxes I (r. 486-465 B.C.E.). 

In a period of fewer than one hundred years, the small coastal Persian kingdom expanded through conquest to include Afghanistan, western India along the Indus River, and Central Asia in the east; in the west, their geographic control included Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and all of Anatolia including the most western Anatolian kingdom of Lydia.

Rome. Concerning the rise of the Roman Empire, the expansion through conquest does not occur during the imperial period (31 B.C.E.-476 C.E.), but instead during the period of the Republic (509-31 B.C.E.).

As Map 8.2 in SNT (169) demonstrates, there was still unrest in certain areas of the Empire despite the Pax Romana (13 B.C.E.-180 C.E.); moreover, territories were still being added to the Roman Empire by the death of Emperor Hadrian (138 C.E.). The vast geographic territory touching the Mediterranean Sea (southern Europe, Greece, Anatolia, northern Africa, Egypt, etc.), however, is not technically the product of the Roman Empire (SNT 165).

The rise of the Roman Empire is more the result of political maneuvering away from a representative government towards a government of concentrated power in one man. This maneuvering begins with Julius Caesar.

Caesar is a victorious general who desires to become a member of the Republic Senate and was named Dictator upon arrival in the city of Rome. He violated the traditions of disarming at the city limits and the military one-day celebration to show the spoils of war; instead, Caesar crosses the Rubicon river armed, and celebrated for three days. Consequently, the senate responds to his actions by assassinating him. This ushered in a political civil war, where Caesar’s adopted son (nephew) Octavian and the allies of Julius Caesar take revenge upon all the assassins and their families, confiscate lands, and even kill slaves.

Octavian ultimately would become the first Roman Emperor, renamed himself Augustus, and reigned for approximately forty-one years (r. 27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.). The consequence was the loss of democracy, the rise of consolidated power, and as Juvenal notes distractions (“bread and circuses” SNT 168).

Thus, the rise of these two empires is seen from two different arcs. With Persia, the kingdom becomes an empire through traditional means – conquest and domination. The Roman Empire emerged due to political maneuvering rather than conquest. Yet, the rise of these empires emerges from a similar source: a small region or city that becomes a dominant world power.

Politics and Economics

Persia. Lockard describes the Persian rule during the imperial expansion as an “autocratic but culturally tolerant government” (SNT 141). In general, then, the diplomacy strategies of the Persian kings provided codified and humanitarian laws, kind economic policies, provincial governments, and expressed religious and social-cultural tolerance toward the peoples they conquered by force. Cyrus II (the Great) issued what is often called the first charter of human rights, and Darius I provided a codified law similar to that of Hammurabi.

The provinces were governed by a satrap (“protector of the kingdom”) who enforced established laws and paid taxes yearly to the king (SNT 143). Also, the religious and social-cultural tolerance shown to the diversity (language, religion, territories) of the growing empire is thought of as “most crucial” to its political success since it allowed Persia stability and flexibility not only in governing but also in battle and in commerce. Xerxes, however, was a less tolerant and more burdensome king (SNT 145).

Economically, other elements complimented Persia’s political success such as Darius completing the first Suez canal which temporarily unifies the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, thus expanding the land-based commerce of Persia (e.g. the “royal road”) to also include maritime trade from the west to the east. The trade routes not only reinforce the economic forces of the Persian Empire but also extends the political power of its aristocracy.

Rome. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, saw unquestioned control of the Mediterranean for nearly a century and a half (27 B.C.E.-180 C.E.) following the emergence of Caesar Augustus. This is known as the Pax Romana (Roman Peace). By the first century C.E., Rome was a multinational, diversely populated empire. Despite this diversity, there was equality under Roman law and emphasized personal responsibility before the law. It is believed that Stoicism, a Greek philosophy, influenced Roman law in its policies of tolerance, moderation, and acceptance of life (SNT 168).

Meanwhile, the economic bases of the Roman Empire came from its growing trade routes and industries which took advantage of its maritime technologies and routes, and its vast networks of Roman roads across land extending over 150,000 miles (SNT 171). The trade routes on land not only connected Europe, Greece, Anatolia, and Egypt, but Rome made contact with India on the Silk Road, and even with China. Unfortunately, overconsumption and lack of productivity from the western part of the Empire would overburden the economic system, inflation would be a problem, and expensive conquests would deplete the mines and the farmlands (SNT 172).

Thus, the political and economic bases of Persia and Rome faced similar challenges of managing a multinational population and a vast expanding trading network. They both extended a measure of political toleration and equality, and both took advantage of land-based and maritime trading and commerce. Yet, in Persia it would appear that the policies of intolerance would hurt the empire; meanwhile, in Rome, it would be the overconsumption of its scarce resources, and a lack of fiscal responsibility that would hurt its political and economic future.

Environmental Factors

Considering the environmental factors of both the Persian and Roman Empires, respectively, geography is crucial. Map 7.1 in SNT (142) demonstrates some topographical elements of the geographic environment of the Persian kingdom and the breadth of the Persian Empire at its height (cir. 500 B.C.E.).

The Persian homeland was on the northwestern shore of the Persian Gulf and would suggest the potential to have some maritime trade and quite possibly some naval strength needed to control those waters. Persia would then have some connection to India, China, and Egypt. It would also probably have rich fisheries. However, on its northern borders, the Persian kingdom faces the Zagros Mountains and other mountain ranges. It is therefore landlocked on this side. The Persian kingdom also would then have depended upon land-based trade.

When the imperial expansion occurred, trade opportunities were strengthened along newly controlled waterways (Indus River Valley, Suez, the Mediterranean Sea, etc). It may be observed that many of the environmental factors that shaped Persia were overcome through expansion as a result of conquest.

Based on Map 8.2 in SNT (168), there would be a tremendous impact of environmental factors upon the Roman Empire.

First, the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is the center of the Roman Empire suggests its importance in shaping the environment of Rome. There would be fishing, and fisheries, maritime travel and trade, maritime technologies, and naval capacities. There would also imply that the world would be more connected due to maritime travel.

Second, the mountainous European lands like Greece and Italy would also imply that it would be possible to be landlocked in various places, so on land, there would be difficulty in travel and communication. The valleys and small communities would also be a natural place for the growing of grapes and shepherding. This would suggest then wool, fabrics, textiles, and dairy products. The environmental factors of the Roman Empire would also imply the sharing of many ideas from the farthest parts of their world.

Thus, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environments maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity in land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

The Challenges of Empire

Every political system and government has pressures working on it from within and from outside. For all their success, the Persian and Roman Empires are no different.

Persia. Persia faces significant challenges, particularly during the reign of Xerxes (486-465 B.C.E.), son of Darius I, which will ultimately weaken the empire. Xerxes inherits a larger kingdom after his father’s conquests, but it comes with growing unrest among the Greek-speaking communities in the west which do not like Persian rule. The Scythians and several Ionic coastal cities become increasingly rebellious and Xerxes is forced to deal with the expensive task of shutting down their rebellion. Xerxes does so and desires to completely conquer the divided and weak Grecian peninsula; but, what should have been a “cakewalk” ends in an epic failure.

Moreover, Xerxes’ reign represents a significant shift towards intolerance, internal Achaemenid strife, and financial instability. Xerxes and his successors “unwisely reversed” the policies which had brought about the Persian Empire’s greatest strengths and flexibilities (SNT 145). The weight of these policy shifts weakened and exacerbated the empire internally and externally, and as a consequence, concluded with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire in 330 B.C.E.

Rome. Rome, as well, faced major internal and external challenges. As mentioned above, later in the Roman Empire there were significant political and economic problems that undermined it. As a result of an over-reliance upon soldiers, the emperor would eventually come from soldier-backed emperors and this transition did not come without consequences.

For example, “none died peacefully in old age” (SNT 172). Yet, also, conquests would end due to the overconsumption of natural and agricultural resources. Externally, Rome would face in its declining years the rise of the Celtic and German societies in Europe. These societies exhausted Roman military resources, especially since Romans could not raise enough taxes to pay for soldiers to fight them off, especially the Germans (SNT 172-173).

Thus, the internal and external conflicts seem more focused on the Empire during the days of Xerxes when there was a reversal of policies away from tolerance and goodwill towards its subjects. Instead, there was internal unrest and military embarrassment in his failure to conquer the Grecian peninsula. Meanwhile, Rome struggled with political shifts as well, but it suffered tremendously due to mismanagement of natural and financial resources, and the unrest generated by the Celtics and the Germans.

Observations

In conclusion, there are few observations that can be made regarding the similarities and differences between the Persian and Roman Empires.

First, while the Persian Empire rose to world power through traditional means of expansion through conquest, the Roman Empire emerges due to political maneuvering and the transition from a representative government to one of consolidated power in Caesar.

Second, the political and economic bases that sustained the Persian and Roman Empires demonstrate similar demands for managing multinational populations under their rule and the economic capacity to trade and connect to other nations, but each empire succumbed to undermining what made it strong. For the Persians, it was their political tolerance and for the Romans, it was their lack of restraint with their resources.

Third, both the Persians and the Romans had experienced due to their environment: maritime travel, trade, and diet. Rome however appears to have had more diversity it land-based production in dairy, wool, olive trees, and vineyards.

Fourth, the internal and external challenges which confronted Persia and Rome are similar in that are rooted in policy changes and military interaction with outsiders. In the case of Persia, it was a drastic change in policy, while in Rome’s case it was a lack of management.

Endnotes

  1. The class lectures referenced here are from Professor Ann Wiederrecht, Bakersfield College. The citation format/style for the paper will remain as submitted (cf. SNT, page).
  2. Craig A. Lockard, Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015).